Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956: Proposed amendment

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 21 November 2016:

Decision Reference: MD-T-2016-0101

Decision Summary Title :

Amendment to the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956

Date of Decision Summary:

17 November 2016

Decision Summary Author:

Manager – Transport Policy

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

N/A

Written Report

Title :

Amendment to the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956

Date of Written Report:

17 November 2016

Written Report Author:

Manager – Transport Policy

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

Public

Subject: Amendment to the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956

Decision(s): The Minister approved the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

Reason(s) for Decision: To provide consistent and appropriate penalties with regard to motoring offences.

Resource Implications: DfI Officers and Law Draftsman’s time.

Action Required: DfI Officers to provide law drafting instructions.

Signature:

Position:

Minister for Infrastructure

Date Signed:

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956: Law drafting instructions

DEPARTMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE

AMENDMENT TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC (JERSEY) LAW 1956

Purpose of the Report

To request the Minister for Infrastructure to approve law drafting instructions in order to amend the following Articles under the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (“the Law”) namely:-

a) Article 35: “Powers to order offenders to be tested”;

b) Article 28(1): “Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit” and Article 30(7) “Provision of specimens for analysis”.

c) Article 36: “Alternative verdicts”;

Background

Following a review of the existing legislation in 2015, Road Traffic (No 62) (Jersey) Regulations 2015 introduced four new offences within the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, namely: -

23A Causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

25A Causing death by careless driving.

26A Causing serious injury by careless driving.

26B Causing serious injury by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.

The levels of penalties for these new offences were scrutinised in detail by legal colleagues and advisors to ensure consistency with other offences. However, inadvertently, certain inconsistencies were created with adjunctive legislation when the regulations came into force. The following amendments to the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 address this.

With regard to a) above, Article 35 of the Law “Power to order offenders to be tested” gives power to extend the period of disqualification period until the disqualified person has passed the prescribed test. Article 35 states “On the conviction of a person for an offence under Articles 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 or 30 B,” where the Court makes an order disqualifying that person for holding or obtaining a driving licence for a fixed period of time, it shall make an order disqualifying the person for holding or obtaining a licence (other than a provisional licence) until he or she, since the end of that fixed period, passed the prescribed test”.

Regulation 62 did not amend Article 35, leaving the Courts with no power to order retests for convictions under the new Articles 23A, 25A, 26A and 26B. Thus for these new and serious offences there is no requirement or power for the Court to order an extended disqualification and retest.

Therefore the Court is left in the position that it must order a retest for offences such as dangerous driving (Article 22) and careless driving (Article 25) but cannot order retests for the serious offences introduced by Regulation 62.

With regard to paragraph b) above, in order to maintain consistent levels of penalty between the new and existing offences, Road Traffic (No 62) (Jersey) Regulations 2015 amended Article 27 “Driving when under influence of drink or drugs” to increase the maximum penalty from six months imprisonment to 12 months. It did not amend Article 28(1) “driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit” or Article 30(7) “refusal to provide specimens for analysis”. A person can be found guilty of driving whilst under the influence of drink under Articles 27, 28 or 30 and it is therefore inconsistent that the length of imprisonment is not the same for all three offences.

In regard to paragraph c) above, Road Traffic (No 62) (Jersey) Regulations 2015 amended Article 36 “Alternative verdicts” to provide appropriate alternative verdicts for the new offences. A transportation error occurred within the alternative verdicts table, that is to say, in the column with the heading “Offence Charged” of the verdicts table, the offence described as “driving or attempting to drive with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit Article 28(1)(a)” offers Article 27 as an alternative verdict when it should offer Article 28(1)((b) “being in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit”

Discussion

The Magistrate has written to the Minister asking for these issues to be addressed as soon as possible to provide consistent levels of penalties for these serious motoring offences. These issues as detailed above have been considered and advised upon by the Law Officers Department and it is proposed to amend the relevant Articles within the Law accordingly.

Further work will be undertaken with legal colleagues and advisors to understand how existing quality assurance procedures might be expanded, to prevent similar inconsistencies occurring in the future.

Recommendations

The Minister is recommended to approve the following amendments to the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956: -

Articles 28(1) and 30(7) be brought into line with Article 27 by increasing the term of imprisonment to 12 months.
Articles 23A, 25A, 26A and 26B be added to Article 35 (requirement to retest).
Article 36 be amended to provide Article 28(1)(b) as an alternative verdict to Article 28(1)(a).

Reason(s) for Decision

To provide consistent and appropriate penalties with regard to motoring offences.

Resource implication

DfI and Law Draftsman’s time in preparation of law changes.

Action Required

DfI Officers to provide law drafting instructions.

Written by: Manager - Transport Policy

Approved by: Director of Transport